Environmental Protection
Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Ensure Safer Underground Storage Tanks Gao ID: GAO-02-712T May 8, 2002Hazardous substances that leak from underground storage tanks can contaminate the soil and water and pose continuing health risks. Leaks of methyl tertiary butyl ether--a fuel additive--have forced several communities to close their wells. GAO surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine whether tanks are compliant with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) underground storage tank (UST) requirements. About 1.5 million tanks have been closed since the program was created, leaving about 693,000 tanks subject to UST requirements. Eighty-nine percent of these tanks had the required protective equipment installed, but nearly 30 percent of them were not properly operated and maintained. EPA estimates that the rest were inactive and empty. More than half of the states do not meet the minimum rate recommended by EPA for inspections. State officials said that they lacked the money, staff, and authority to conduct more inspections or more strongly enforce tank compliance. States reported that even tanks with the required leak prevention and detection equipment continue to leak, although the full extent of the problem is unknown. EPA is seeking better data on leaks from upgraded tanks and is considering whether it needs to set new tank requirements, such as double-walled tanks, to prevent future leaks.
GAO-02-712T, Environmental Protection: Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Ensure Safer Underground Storage Tanks
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-712T
entitled 'Environmental Protection: Improved Inspections and
Enforcement Would Ensure Safer Underground Storage Tanks' which was
released on May 8, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, Risk and Waste
Management, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate.
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 1:30 p.m.
Wednesday, May 8, 2002:
Environmental Protection:
Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Ensure Safer Underground
Storage Tanks:
Statement of John Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-02-712T:
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to have this opportunity to come before you today to
discuss our May 2001 report on the Environmental Protection Agency‘s
(EPA) Underground Storage Tank (UST) program.[Footnote 1] The report
relates directly to the topic of today‘s hearing”the proposed
Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2001 (S. 1850)”that is
consistent with many of the suggested program improvements found in our
report. The timing of the legislation and hearing is critical. Recent
studies have shown that tanks that leak hazardous substances, such as
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), contaminate the soil or water and
continue to pose health risks ranging from nausea to kidney or liver
damage or even cancer. Indeed, leaks of MTBE”a fuel additive for
reducing emissions and raising octane”have been found in drinking water
sources and several communities have now had to close their wells. For
example, a school in Roselawn, Indiana, discovered that the children
had been using and drinking water with 10 times EPA‘s recommended safe
limit.
The Congress in 1984 created the UST program to protect the public from
potential leaks from the then more than 2 million tanks located across
the nation, mostly at gas stations. Under the program, EPA required tank
owners to install new leak detection equipment by the end of 1993 and
new spill-, overfill-, and corrosion-prevention equipment by the end of
1998. If these conditions were not met, owners had to close or remove
their tanks. In general, EPA has granted states the authority to
implement the program with agency oversight and monitoring, or states
operate their own program under state law with limited EPA oversight.
EPA has provided states funding (about $187,000 per state) for doing
so. EPA retains authority for a small number of tanks primarily located
on Indian lands. In addition, the Congress created a trust fund in 1986
to help EPA and the states cover tank cleanup costs that owners and
operators could not afford or were reluctant to pay. The fund is
replenished partly through a $ .001/gallon tax on gasoline and other
fuels. At the end of fiscal year 2001, the fund had a balance of about
$1.7 billion.
Because the states are primarily implementing the provisions of the
program, in October 2000, we conducted a survey of all 50 states and the
District of Columbia to determine whether tanks are complying with
program requirements, how EPA and the states are inspecting tanks and
enforcing the requirements, and whether upgraded tanks still leak. We
also visited the three EPA regions with the largest number of tanks to
monitor.
In summary, we found that:
* About 1.5 million tanks had been permanently closed since the program
was created, leaving about 693,000 tanks subject to UST requirements.
Based on the states‘ responses to our survey, we estimated that about 89
percent of these tanks had the required protective equipment installed,
but that almost 30 percent of them”more than 200,000 tanks”were not
being operated and maintained properly, thus, increasing the chance of
leaks. For example, 19 states reported frequent problems with corrosion-
prevention equipment and 15 states reported that leak detection
equipment was frequently turned off or improperly maintained. The states
and EPA attributed these operation and maintenance problems primarily
to poorly trained staff. Of the remaining 11 percent, or 76,000, tanks
that we estimated had not been retrofitted with the required equipment,
EPA and the states speculated that the tanks were probably inactive and
empty. Nevertheless, it is important to address them because experience
has shown that they may have leaked in the past, but the contamination,
which poses health risks, is not discovered until the tank is dug up
for removal. However, most states and EPA do not know if all inactive
tanks are empty”and we could not verify the accuracy and completeness
of the compliance data they reported”because they do not physically
inspect all tanks.
* In fact, over half of the states do not inspect all of their tanks
frequently enough to meet the minimum rate recommended by EPA ”at least
once every 3 years. In addition, 27 states lack the authority to
prohibit fuel deliveries to stations with problem tanks”one of the most
effective tools for ensuring compliance with program
requirements”relying instead on issuing citations and fines. States
said that they did not have the money, staff, or, authority to conduct
more inspections or more strongly enforce tank compliance.
* Finally, states reported that even tanks with the required leak
prevention and detection equipment installed continue to leak, although
the full extent of the problem is not known. In response to our survey,
14 states reported some tank leaks, 17 states said their tanks seldom
or never leaked, and 20 states did not know if leaks occurred before
the tanks were upgraded. EPA and some localities have studies underway
to obtain better data on leaks from upgraded tanks. EPA, as part of a
set of four program initiatives it announced in October 2000, is also
considering whether it needs to set new tank requirements, such as
double-walled tanks, to prevent further leaks.
To address these problems, our report recommends that EPA work with
the states to determine training needs and ways to fill them, and to
more specifically address the estimated 76,000 tanks that have not yet
been upgraded, closed, or removed as required. Our report also contains
recommendations to EPA and suggestions to the Congress on ways to
promote better inspections and enforcement and to address related
resource shortfalls by expanding the use of the $1.7 billion trust fund
designated for tank cleanup to also cover additional inspection and
enforcement activities. The proposed legislation is consistent with many
of the program improvements that we suggested.
Most Tanks Have Been Upgraded, but Many Are Not Properly Operated
and Maintained:
Based on state responses to our survey, we estimated that nearly
617,000, or about 89 percent of the approximately 693,000 regulated
tanks, had been upgraded with the federally required equipment by the
end of fiscal year 2000. EPA data showed that about 70 percent of the
total number of tanks that its regions regulate on tribal lands had
also been upgraded.
With regard to the approximately 76,000 tanks that we estimated have not
been upgraded, closed, or removed as required, 17 states and the 3 EPA
regions we visited reported that they believed that most of these tanks
were either empty or inactive. However, another five states reported
that at least half of their non-upgraded tanks were still in use. EPA
and states assume that the tanks are empty or inactive and therefore
pose less risk. As a result, they may give them a lower priority for
resources. However, states also reported that they generally did not
discover tank leaks or contamination around tanks until the empty or
inactive tanks were removed from the ground during replacement or
closure. Consequently, unless EPA and the states address these non-
compliant tanks in a more timely manner, they may be overlooking a
potential source of soil and groundwater contamination.
Even though most tanks have been upgraded, we estimated from our survey
data that more than 200,000 of them, or about 29 percent, were not
being properly operated and maintained, increasing the risk of leaks.
The extent of operations and maintenance problems varied across the
states, as figure 1 illustrates.
Figure 1: Compliance With Federal Operations and Maintenance
Requirements Varies (total active tanks per state):
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States indicating the number of
active tanks in each state, as well as the following compliance levels:
[A] 91% to 100% of tanks reported to be in compliance;
[B] 71% to 90% of tanks reported to be in compliance;
[C] 21% to 70% of tanks reported to be in compliance;
[D] Compliance reported to be unknown.
Alabama: 18,567[B];
Alaska: 1,122[C];
Arizona: 8,191[C];
Arkansas: 9,941[C];
California: 50,000[C];
Colorado: 7,990[A];
Connecticut: 13,831[C];
Delaware: 1,744[C];
District of Columbia: 754[D];
Florida: 32,320[B];
Georgia: 27,944[D];
Hawaii: 2,184[C];
Idaho: 3,479[C];
Illinois: 27,317[B];
Indiana: 7,974[D];
Iowa: 8,499[B];
Kansas: 7,830[B];
Kentucky: 14,843[C];
Louisiana: 16,100[B];
Maine: 3,709[C];
Maryland: 8,784[B];
Massachusetts: 12,122[C];
Michigan: 23,500[B];
Minnesota: 14,000[C];
Mississippi: 9,533[B];
Missouri: 11,039[B];
Montana: 3,619[B];
Nebraska: 7,133[C];
Nevada: 3,533[B];
New Hampshire: 3,067[C];
New Jersey: 17,971[D];
New Mexico: 3,852[A];
New York: 32,928[C];
North Carolina: 31,000[B];
North Dakota: 2,407[B];
Ohio: 29,037[A];
Oklahoma: 10,634[C];
Oregon: 7,370[C];
Pennsylvania: 29,542[C];
Rhode Island: 1,788[D];
South Carolina: 12,727[C];
South Dakota: 3,089[A];
Tennessee: 17,167[D];
Texas: 54,674[A];
Utah: 4,193[C];
Vermont: 2,442[C];
Virginia: 32,267[C];
Washington: 11,450[C];
West Virginia: 6,629[C];
Wisconsin: 16,544[A];
Wyoming: 2,071[A].
Note: EPA implements the federal tank program in Idaho and enforces
certain requirements in New York because these states lack some or all
of the necessary laws.
Source: GAO‘s estimates based on responses to a survey of tank program
managers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
[End of figure]
The states reported a variety of operational and maintenance problems,
such as operators turning off leak detection equipment. The states also
reported that the majority of problems occurred at tanks owned by small,
independent businesses; non-retail and commercial companies, such as
cab companies; and local governments. The states attributed these
problems to a lack of training for tank owners, installers, operators,
removers, and inspectors. These smaller businesses and local government
operations may find it more difficult to afford adequate training,
especially given the high turnover rates among tank staff, or may give
training a lower priority. Almost all of the states reported a need for
additional resources to keep their own inspectors and program staff
trained, and 41 states requested additional technical assistance from
the federal government to provide such training.
To date, EPA has provided states with a number of training sessions and
helpful tools, such as operation and maintenance checklists and
guidelines. One of EPA‘s tank program initiatives is also intended to
improve training and tank compliance with federal requirements, such as
setting annual compliance targets with the states. The agency is in the
process of implementing its compliance improvement initiative, which
involves actions such as setting the targets and providing incentives to
tank owners, but it is too early to gauge the impact of the agency‘s
efforts on compliance rates.
Most States Do Not Meet EPA‘s Recommendation to Inspect All Tanks Every
3 Years or Have the Enforcement Tools Needed to Identify and Correct
Problems:
According to EPA‘s program managers, only physical inspections can
confirm whether tanks have been upgraded and are being properly
operated and maintained. However, only 19 states physically inspect all
of their tanks at least once every 3 years”the minimum that EPA
considers necessary for effective tank monitoring. Another 10 states
inspect all tanks, but less frequently. The remaining 22 states do not
inspect all tanks, but instead generally target inspections to
potentially problematic tanks, such as those close to drinking water
sources. In addition, not all of EPA‘s own regions comply with the
recommended rate. Two of the three regions that we visited inspected
tanks located on tribal land every 3 years. Figure 2 illustrates the
states‘ reported inspection practices.
Figure 2: Frequency of Inspections Varies Among States (total active
tanks per state):
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States indicating the number of
active tanks in each state, as well as the following frequency of
inspections:
[A] Inspect all tanks at least every 3 years;
[B] Inspect all tanks at intervals of 4 years or longer;
[C] Do not inspect all tanks on a regular basis;
Alabama: 18,567[A];
Alaska: 1,122[A];
Arizona: 8,191[B];
Arkansas: 9,941[B];
California: 50,000[A];
Colorado: 7,990[A];
Connecticut: 13,831[B];
Delaware: 1,744[C];
District of Columbia: 754[C];
Florida: 32,320[A];
Georgia: 27,944[C];
Hawaii: 2,184[A];
Idaho: 3,479[C];
Illinois: 27,317[A];
Indiana: 7,974[A];
Iowa: 8,499[C];
Kansas: 7,830[C];
Kentucky: 14,843[C];
Louisiana: 16,100[B];
Maine: 3,709[C];
Maryland: 8,784[C];
Massachusetts: 12,122[B];
Michigan: 23,500[A];
Minnesota: 14,000[C];
Mississippi: 9,533[B];
Missouri: 11,039[A];
Montana: 3,619[A];
Nebraska: 7,133[A];
Nevada: 3,533[A];
New Hampshire: 3,067[C];
New Jersey: 17,971[C];
New Mexico: 3,852[A];
New York: 32,928[C];
North Carolina: 31,000[B];
North Dakota: 2,407[C];
Ohio: 29,037[C];
Oklahoma: 10,634[A];
Oregon: 7,370[C];
Pennsylvania: 29,542[B];
Rhode Island: 1,788[C];
South Carolina: 12,727[A];
South Dakota: 3,089[A];
Tennessee: 17,167[B];
Texas: 54,674[C];
Utah: 4,193[A];
Vermont: 2,442[C];
Virginia: 32,267[B];
Washington: 11,450[C];
West Virginia: 6,629[C];
Wisconsin: 16,544[A];
Wyoming: 2,071[C].
Note: EPA implements the federal tank program in Idaho and enforces
certain requirements in New York because these states lack some or all
of the necessary laws.
Source: GAO‘s estimates based on responses to a survey of tank program
managers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
[End of figure]
According to our survey results, some states and EPA regions would need
additional staff to conduct more frequent inspections. For example,
under staffing levels at the time of our review, the inspectors in 11
states would each have to visit more than 300 facilities a year to
cover all tanks at least once every 3 years, but EPA estimates that a
qualified inspector can only visit at most 200 facilities a year.
Moreover, because most states use their own employees to conduct
inspections, state legislatures would need to provide them additional
hiring authority and funding to acquire more inspectors. Officials in
40 states said that they would support a federal mandate requiring
states to periodically inspect all tanks, in part because they expect
that such a mandate would provide them needed leverage to obtain the
requisite inspection staff and funding from their state legislatures.
In addition to more frequent inspections, a number of states stated that
they need additional enforcement tools to correct problem tanks. EPA‘s
program managers stated that good enforcement requires a variety of
tools, including the ability to issue citations or fines. One of the
most effective tools is the ability to prohibit suppliers from
delivering fuel to stations with problem tanks. However, as figure 3
illustrates, 27 states reported that they did not have the authority to
stop deliveries. In addition, EPA believes, and we agree, that the law
governing the tank program does not give the Agency clear authority to
regulate fuel suppliers and therefore prohibit their deliveries.
Figure 3: Many States Lack Authority to Prohibit Fuel Deliveries to
Problem Tanks (total active tanks per state):
This figure is a map of the United States indicating the number of
active tanks in each state, as well as the following authority:
[A] States with authority to limit fuel deliveries to non-compliant
tanks;
[B] States without authority to limit fuel deliveries to non-compliant
tanks;
Alabama: 18,567[B];
Alaska: 1,122[A];
Arizona: 8,191[B];
Arkansas: 9,941[A];
California: 50,000[A];
Colorado: 7,990[B];
Connecticut: 13,831[B];
Delaware: 1,744[B];
District of Columbia: 754[B];
Florida: 32,320[B];
Georgia: 27,944[A];
Hawaii: 2,184[B];
Idaho: 3,479[B];
Illinois: 27,317[A];
Indiana: 7,974[B];
Iowa: 8,499[A];
Kansas: 7,830[A];
Kentucky: 14,843[B];
Louisiana: 16,100[A];
Maine: 3,709[B];
Maryland: 8,784[B];
Massachusetts: 12,122[A];
Michigan: 23,500[A];
Minnesota: 14,000[A];
Mississippi: 9,533[B];
Missouri: 11,039[B];
Montana: 3,619[A];
Nebraska: 7,133[B];
Nevada: 3,533[A];
New Hampshire: 3,067[B];
New Jersey: 17,971[B];
New Mexico: 3,852[B];
New York: 32,928[B];
North Carolina: 31,000[A];
North Dakota: 2,407[B];
Ohio: 29,037[B];
Oklahoma: 10,634[A];
Oregon: 7,370[A];
Pennsylvania: 29,542[B];
Rhode Island: 1,788[B];
South Carolina: 12,727[A];
South Dakota: 3,089[B];
Tennessee: 17,167[B];
Texas: 54,674[B];
Utah: 4,193[A];
Vermont: 2,442[A];
Virginia: 32,267[B];
Washington: 11,450[A];
West Virginia: 6,629[A];
Wisconsin: 16,544[A];
Wyoming: 2,071[B].
Note: EPA implements the federal tank program in Idaho and enforces
certain requirements in New York because these states lack some or all
of the necessary laws.
Source: GAO‘s estimates based on responses to a survey of tank program
managers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
[End of figure]
Almost all of the states said they need additional enforcement resources
and 27 need additional authority. Members of both an expert panel and an
industry group, which EPA convened to help it assess the tank program,
likewise saw the need for states to have more resources and more uniform
and consistent enforcement across states, including the authority to
prohibit fuel deliveries. They further noted that the fear of being shut
down would provide owners and operators a greater incentive to comply
with federal requirements.
Under its tank initiatives, EPA is working with states to implement
third party inspection programs, using either private contractors or
other state agencies that may also be inspecting these business sites
for other reasons. EPA‘s regions have the opportunity, to some extent,
to use the grants that they provide to the states for their tank
programs as a means to encourage more inspections and better
enforcement. However, the Agency does not want to limit state funding
to the point where this further jeopardizes program implementation. The
Congress may also wish to consider making more funds available to
states to improve tank inspections and enforcement. For example, the
Congress could increase the amount of funds it provides from the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust fund, which the Congress
established to specifically provide funds for cleaning up contamination
from tanks. The Congress could then allow states to spend a portion of
these funds on inspections and enforcement. It has considered taking
this action in the past, and 40 states said that they would welcome
such funding flexibility.
Some Tanks Continue to Leak Even After They Have Been Upgraded, Although
the Extent of this Problem is Unknown:
In fiscal year 2000, EPA and the states confirmed a total of more than
14,500 leaks or releases from regulated tanks, although the Agency and
many of the states could not verify whether the releases had occurred
before or after the tanks had been upgraded. According to our survey, 14
states said that they had traced newly discovered leaks or releases that
year to upgraded tanks, while another 17 states said they seldom or
never detected such leaks. The remaining 20 states could not confirm
whether or not their upgraded tanks leaked.
EPA recognizes the need to collect better data to determine the extent
and cause of leaks from upgraded tanks, the effectiveness of the current
equipment, and if there is a need to strengthen existing equipment
standards. The Agency has launched studies in several of its regions to
obtain such data, but it may have trouble concluding whether leaks
occurred after the upgrades. In a study of local tanks, researchers in
Santa Clara County, California, concluded that upgraded tanks do not
provide complete protection against leaks, and even properly operated
and maintained tank monitoring systems cannot guarantee that leaks are
detected. EPA, as one of its program initiatives, is working with the
states to gather data on leaks from upgraded tanks in order to determine
whether equipment requirements need to be strengthened, such as
requiring double-walled tanks. The states and the industry and expert
groups support EPA‘s actions.
In closing, the states and EPA cannot ensure that all regulated tanks
have the required equipment to prevent health risks from fuel leaks,
spills, and overfills or that tanks are safely operated and maintained.
Many states are not inspecting all of their tanks to make sure that
they do not leak, nor can they prohibit fuel from being delivered to
problem tanks. EPA has the opportunity to help its regions and states
correct these limitations through its tank initiatives, but it is
difficult to determine whether the Agency‘s proposed actions will be
sufficient because it is just defining its implementation plans. The
Congress also has the opportunity to help provide EPA and the states
the additional inspection and enforcement authority and resources they
need to improve tank compliance and safety.
Therefore, to better ensure that underground storage tanks meet federal
requirements to prevent contamination that poses health risks, we have
made a number of recommendations to the EPA administrator, including
that the agency:
1. work with the states to address the remaining non-upgraded tanks,
such as reviewing available information to determine those that pose
the greatest risks and setting up timetables to remove or close these
tanks.
2. supplement the training support it has provided to date by having
each region work with each of the states in its jurisdiction to
determine specific training needs and tailored ways to meet them.
In addition, we suggested several actions that the Congress may want to
consider to help the program. Such actions include efforts to determine
whether to increase the program‘s resources, for example, by increasing
the amount of funds it provides from the trust fund and allowing states
to spend a limited portion on training, inspection, and enforcement
activities, as long as cleanups are not delayed. In addition, we
suggested that the congress consider (1) authorizing EPA to require
physical inspections of all tanks on a periodic basis, (2) authorizing
EPA to prohibit fuel deliveries to tanks that do not comply with
federal requirements, and (3) requiring similar authority to the states
to prohibit fuel deliveries. The proposed Legislation incorporates many
of the program improvements that we suggested.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-
3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony were Rich
Johnson, Eileen Larence, Gerald Laudermilk, and Jonathan McMurray.
[End Of Section]
Footnote:
[1] Environmental Protection: Improved Inspections and Enforcement
Would Better Ensure the Safety of Underground Storage Tanks [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-464], May 4, 2001.
[End Of Section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
